|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
Northern Ireland26795 Posts
On April 14 2021 05:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 05:49 Gorsameth wrote:On April 14 2021 05:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 14 2021 05:32 JimmiC wrote:
The prevalence of guns in society make every police encounter potentially deadly, no other developed country has the same level of risks for the officers. Then you include into that the lack of training, support, mental health support and so on and you get what you get.
As long as you continue to have around 100 officers die by firearms per year, and who knows how many more shot (if anyone has those numbers I'd be interested in seeing them), you are also going to get this shoot first, get home safe kind of attitude. For comparison Canada averages under 2 per year. That was going to be my response but I thought it was too obvious so I left it alone. There's no way getting around the millions of firearms circulating. If there is, I'd like to know about it. There is no way around it but better training to, where possible, not put yourself into positions where you have to make that split second 'shoot or die' choice would probably go a long way. Worth pointing out neither of the cops that killed George Floyd or Daunte Wright thought the person they killed even had a gun, let alone that they were going to shoot them.
Indeed, I’m unsure what training or lack thereof was the issue with either of those incidents, or a multitude of others.
What training mitigates for people with a Messiah complex acting in such a manner without a real root and branch cultural reform of what the police is for and should do?
We’ve all seen enough completely unnecessary and unjustified killings far beyond explaining by the prevalence of firearms as a factor that US police have to consider in encounters.
|
On April 14 2021 06:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 06:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 14 2021 06:06 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2021 05:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 14 2021 05:32 JimmiC wrote:
The prevalence of guns in society make every police encounter potentially deadly, no other developed country has the same level of risks for the officers. Then you include into that the lack of training, support, mental health support and so on and you get what you get.
As long as you continue to have around 100 officers die by firearms per year, and who knows how many more shot (if anyone has those numbers I'd be interested in seeing them), you are also going to get this shoot first, get home safe kind of attitude. For comparison Canada averages under 2 per year. That was going to be my response but I thought it was too obvious so I left it alone. There's no way getting around the millions of firearms circulating. If there is, I'd like to know about it. If we accept that Americans have the right to bear arms without that activity requiring any specific plan to use them in the immediate future then police must accept that the presence of a firearm does not imply any specific threat. It’s absurd that we have a doublethink where guns are a constitutionally protected legal right but law enforcement can execute you for possessing one. If the right to bear arms is as important as people think it is then the price of that right must be paid in the blood of dead cops, not law abiding citizens. Police should applaud the patriotism of citizens who answer their doors to with gun in hand and only raise their own guns (everyone is holding a gun in all encounters now) if a gun is raised towards them. That the legal exercise of such an important constitutional right is routinely used to justify the execution of citizens by the state is absurdly perverse. It would be like if people were being shot for voting. Well I mean, the whole firearm thing is absurd. There is no reason for people to be able to carry a tool whose sole function is to turn their fellow citizens into a steak tartare. If you consider that it's fine for people to potentially kill each other, then you gotta pay the consequences. It looks like Republicans are totally fine with it. One person ending up killing another person is in many cases a reasonable outcome for those people. Feel threatened? Find someone trespassing on your property? Just murder the bad guy. But they’re fine with it in the boot licking “the state should be allowed to murder you” way. That’s silly. If you have a right to a gun then you have a right to equal treatment by the state as a gun owner. Every time a police officer behaves differently around a gun owner they are discriminating against citizens exercising a constitutional right. When the police shoot legal gun owners due to fearing for their lives it is a far greater violation than anything George III did to the colonists. It is not the responsibility of citizens to voluntarily give up their rights to protect the state from potential harm the state fears it may suffer if those rights were ever to be exercised. It is the responsibility of the state to make concessions and sacrifices to protect those sacrosanct rights. Every time a police officer shoots out of fear of being shot there should be a constitutional crisis. Every time a police officer gets killed because they failed to shoot first we should celebrate the American commitment to liberty.
Now you're just being facetious.
|
United States43989 Posts
On April 14 2021 06:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 06:22 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2021 06:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 14 2021 06:06 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2021 05:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 14 2021 05:32 JimmiC wrote:
The prevalence of guns in society make every police encounter potentially deadly, no other developed country has the same level of risks for the officers. Then you include into that the lack of training, support, mental health support and so on and you get what you get.
As long as you continue to have around 100 officers die by firearms per year, and who knows how many more shot (if anyone has those numbers I'd be interested in seeing them), you are also going to get this shoot first, get home safe kind of attitude. For comparison Canada averages under 2 per year. That was going to be my response but I thought it was too obvious so I left it alone. There's no way getting around the millions of firearms circulating. If there is, I'd like to know about it. If we accept that Americans have the right to bear arms without that activity requiring any specific plan to use them in the immediate future then police must accept that the presence of a firearm does not imply any specific threat. It’s absurd that we have a doublethink where guns are a constitutionally protected legal right but law enforcement can execute you for possessing one. If the right to bear arms is as important as people think it is then the price of that right must be paid in the blood of dead cops, not law abiding citizens. Police should applaud the patriotism of citizens who answer their doors to with gun in hand and only raise their own guns (everyone is holding a gun in all encounters now) if a gun is raised towards them. That the legal exercise of such an important constitutional right is routinely used to justify the execution of citizens by the state is absurdly perverse. It would be like if people were being shot for voting. Well I mean, the whole firearm thing is absurd. There is no reason for people to be able to carry a tool whose sole function is to turn their fellow citizens into a steak tartare. If you consider that it's fine for people to potentially kill each other, then you gotta pay the consequences. It looks like Republicans are totally fine with it. One person ending up killing another person is in many cases a reasonable outcome for those people. Feel threatened? Find someone trespassing on your property? Just murder the bad guy. But they’re fine with it in the boot licking “the state should be allowed to murder you” way. That’s silly. If you have a right to a gun then you have a right to equal treatment by the state as a gun owner. Every time a police officer behaves differently around a gun owner they are discriminating against citizens exercising a constitutional right. When the police shoot legal gun owners due to fearing for their lives it is a far greater violation than anything George III did to the colonists. It is not the responsibility of citizens to voluntarily give up their rights to protect the state from potential harm the state fears it may suffer if those rights were ever to be exercised. It is the responsibility of the state to make concessions and sacrifices to protect those sacrosanct rights. Every time a police officer shoots out of fear of being shot there should be a constitutional crisis. Every time a police officer gets killed because they failed to shoot first we should celebrate the American commitment to liberty. Now you're just being facetious.
I’m not, I’m highlighting the absurdity of the status quo we’ve grown up with and come to accept.
The two things are irreconcilable. It cannot be justifiable for an agent of the state to use force against legal gun owners if gun ownership is constitutionally protected. Unless the gun is pointed at the agent of the state there should be zero difference between the treatment of armed and unarmed citizens. It’s ridiculous that the police execution of armed citizens is treated as more reasonable than unarmed ones. It relegates a constitutionally protected class to second tier citizenship.
Let’s say that, hypothetically, black people were statistically more likely to assault a police officer. If we had police officers shooting black citizens and then claiming that they feared for their lives because they viewed the citizen as a threat due to their skin colour that would be a big fucking issue. The “sure, I shot him, but in my defence he was black” line wouldn’t work because constitutionally citizens are allowed to have black skin without being subject to summary execution by agents of the state. Gun owners probably are more likely to shoot police officers than people who don’t own guns but that doesn’t make them subject to summary execution.
|
On April 14 2021 06:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 06:26 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 14 2021 06:22 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2021 06:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 14 2021 06:06 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2021 05:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On April 14 2021 05:32 JimmiC wrote:
The prevalence of guns in society make every police encounter potentially deadly, no other developed country has the same level of risks for the officers. Then you include into that the lack of training, support, mental health support and so on and you get what you get.
As long as you continue to have around 100 officers die by firearms per year, and who knows how many more shot (if anyone has those numbers I'd be interested in seeing them), you are also going to get this shoot first, get home safe kind of attitude. For comparison Canada averages under 2 per year. That was going to be my response but I thought it was too obvious so I left it alone. There's no way getting around the millions of firearms circulating. If there is, I'd like to know about it. If we accept that Americans have the right to bear arms without that activity requiring any specific plan to use them in the immediate future then police must accept that the presence of a firearm does not imply any specific threat. It’s absurd that we have a doublethink where guns are a constitutionally protected legal right but law enforcement can execute you for possessing one. If the right to bear arms is as important as people think it is then the price of that right must be paid in the blood of dead cops, not law abiding citizens. Police should applaud the patriotism of citizens who answer their doors to with gun in hand and only raise their own guns (everyone is holding a gun in all encounters now) if a gun is raised towards them. That the legal exercise of such an important constitutional right is routinely used to justify the execution of citizens by the state is absurdly perverse. It would be like if people were being shot for voting. Well I mean, the whole firearm thing is absurd. There is no reason for people to be able to carry a tool whose sole function is to turn their fellow citizens into a steak tartare. If you consider that it's fine for people to potentially kill each other, then you gotta pay the consequences. It looks like Republicans are totally fine with it. One person ending up killing another person is in many cases a reasonable outcome for those people. Feel threatened? Find someone trespassing on your property? Just murder the bad guy. But they’re fine with it in the boot licking “the state should be allowed to murder you” way. That’s silly. If you have a right to a gun then you have a right to equal treatment by the state as a gun owner. Every time a police officer behaves differently around a gun owner they are discriminating against citizens exercising a constitutional right. When the police shoot legal gun owners due to fearing for their lives it is a far greater violation than anything George III did to the colonists. It is not the responsibility of citizens to voluntarily give up their rights to protect the state from potential harm the state fears it may suffer if those rights were ever to be exercised. It is the responsibility of the state to make concessions and sacrifices to protect those sacrosanct rights. Every time a police officer shoots out of fear of being shot there should be a constitutional crisis. Every time a police officer gets killed because they failed to shoot first we should celebrate the American commitment to liberty. Now you're just being facetious. I’m not, I’m highlighting the absurdity of the status quo we’ve grown up with and come to accept. The two things are irreconcilable. It cannot be justifiable for an agent of the state to use force against legal gun owners if gun ownership is constitutionally protected. Unless the gun is pointed at the agent of the state there should be zero difference between the treatment of armed and unarmed citizens. It’s ridiculous that the police execution of armed citizens is treated as more reasonable than unarmed ones. It relegates a constitutionally protected class to second tier citizenship.
The way you worded it, to me, came across that way. Thank you for clearing it up for me. And I agree. I don't have much to offer besides what you've already pointed out.
|
On April 14 2021 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:In related news, I just saw this picture posted on FB today. Guessing it's trustworthy anyway. + Show Spoiler +I mean I'm guessing maybe you can kinda justify a good number of those 377 at the bottom, but.. that's only a fraction.
The genesis of the interactions doesn't tell you anything about whether a killing is justified. The moments leading up to the killing are infinitely more important than the reason for the initial interaction.
|
United States43989 Posts
On April 14 2021 09:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:In related news, I just saw this picture posted on FB today. Guessing it's trustworthy anyway. + Show Spoiler +I mean I'm guessing maybe you can kinda justify a good number of those 377 at the bottom, but.. that's only a fraction. The genesis of the interactions doesn't tell you anything about whether a killing is justified. The moments leading up to the killing are infinitely more important than the reason for the initial interaction.
It tells you that if police stopped responding to welfare checks 94 fewer people would be dead. There was no legal issue there, the police were called to stop by and see if the person was okay.
|
On April 14 2021 10:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:In related news, I just saw this picture posted on FB today. Guessing it's trustworthy anyway. + Show Spoiler +I mean I'm guessing maybe you can kinda justify a good number of those 377 at the bottom, but.. that's only a fraction. The genesis of the interactions doesn't tell you anything about whether a killing is justified. The moments leading up to the killing are infinitely more important than the reason for the initial interaction. It tells you that if police stopped responding to welfare checks 94 fewer people would be dead. There was no legal issue there, the police were called to stop by and see if the person was okay.
If someone calls for a wellness check on their relative that has schizophrenia that has been off their meds and paranoid that people are after them and they have multiple guns in their house, and you can get unarmed people to go in and check on that without a police presence then that's fine by me. A lot less people will be killed by police for sure.
|
United States43989 Posts
On April 14 2021 11:50 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 10:45 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2021 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:In related news, I just saw this picture posted on FB today. Guessing it's trustworthy anyway. + Show Spoiler +I mean I'm guessing maybe you can kinda justify a good number of those 377 at the bottom, but.. that's only a fraction. The genesis of the interactions doesn't tell you anything about whether a killing is justified. The moments leading up to the killing are infinitely more important than the reason for the initial interaction. It tells you that if police stopped responding to welfare checks 94 fewer people would be dead. There was no legal issue there, the police were called to stop by and see if the person was okay. If someone calls for a wellness check on their relative that has schizophrenia that has been off their meds and paranoid that people are after them and they have multiple guns in their house, and you can get unarmed people to go in and check on that without a police presence then that's fine by me. A lot less people will be killed by police for sure.
You understand that police aren’t equipped to handle that kind of situation, right? What all you have is a gun then every problem looks like a target. It’s a welfare check, no escalation is required. If they ask you to leave you leave.
|
On April 14 2021 11:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 11:50 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 10:45 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2021 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:In related news, I just saw this picture posted on FB today. Guessing it's trustworthy anyway. + Show Spoiler +I mean I'm guessing maybe you can kinda justify a good number of those 377 at the bottom, but.. that's only a fraction. The genesis of the interactions doesn't tell you anything about whether a killing is justified. The moments leading up to the killing are infinitely more important than the reason for the initial interaction. It tells you that if police stopped responding to welfare checks 94 fewer people would be dead. There was no legal issue there, the police were called to stop by and see if the person was okay. If someone calls for a wellness check on their relative that has schizophrenia that has been off their meds and paranoid that people are after them and they have multiple guns in their house, and you can get unarmed people to go in and check on that without a police presence then that's fine by me. A lot less people will be killed by police for sure. You understand that police aren’t equipped to handle that kind of situation, right? What all you have is a gun then every problem looks like a target. It’s a welfare check, no escalation is required. If they ask you to leave you leave.
I agree. The problem is our society thinks people that are suicidal or having a mental health crisis need to be detained and taken to a mental health professional for evaluation. I have no idea why in the so called "land of the free" that people don't have a right to kill themselves but that's the world we live in and sadly social workers don't have the ability to detain such individuals so you end up with the police having to do it and you end up with a lot of dangerous situations or suicide-by-cop results.
|
Norway28797 Posts
On April 14 2021 09:06 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:In related news, I just saw this picture posted on FB today. Guessing it's trustworthy anyway. + Show Spoiler +I mean I'm guessing maybe you can kinda justify a good number of those 377 at the bottom, but.. that's only a fraction. The genesis of the interactions doesn't tell you anything about whether a killing is justified. The moments leading up to the killing are infinitely more important than the reason for the initial interaction.
It does, though. It's very hard for me to imagine that a killing is justified if the guy who got killed is unarmed, even if the person in question becomes completely belligerent. I understand killing someone who is in the process of doing something violent with a weapon (although I think it'll most likely be possible to handle a lot of those cases without killing, too), but police should virtually never kill unarmed people.
|
Also I just want to point out that the 94 people you reference is a combination of mental illness/welfare checks and not just welfare checks. I found the source of Eri's image and Googled the names of the first few deaths in the list of that 94. The first was a guy that was walking around his apartment complex armed with a sword and a gun when neighbors called 911 for help he charged police with the sword and they shot him. Another was a guy running around in and out of traffic then ran into a La-Z-Boy store and pulled out a knife and the employees there called 911 fearing for their lives. I don't have the desire to go through the whole list but I have a feeling it's a lot more of people posing a danger to the public and a lot less of "the police just had to stop by and see if the person was okay" as you prefer to frame it.
|
On April 14 2021 14:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:In related news, I just saw this picture posted on FB today. Guessing it's trustworthy anyway. + Show Spoiler +I mean I'm guessing maybe you can kinda justify a good number of those 377 at the bottom, but.. that's only a fraction. The genesis of the interactions doesn't tell you anything about whether a killing is justified. The moments leading up to the killing are infinitely more important than the reason for the initial interaction. It does, though. It's very hard for me to imagine that a killing is justified if the guy who got killed is unarmed, even if the person in question becomes completely belligerent. I understand killing someone who is in the process of doing something violent with a weapon (although I think it'll most likely be possible to handle a lot of those cases without killing, too), but police should virtually never kill unarmed people.
The hot topic right now is the case of daunte Wright who was killed in Minnesota not far from where George Floyd was killed. The gist of the story is that the police pulled him over for expired tags, they discovered he had a warrant for his arrest, when they tried to arrest him he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued and a cop shot him thinking she had her taser instead of her gun. Obviously a mistake. I would prefer if cops were infallible and didn't make mistakes like that. I think it's also worth noting that doctors will kill far more people from their mistakes this year than cops and doctors have years more training in their field, they don't have to make their decisions in split seconds, and their lives are never in danger. If only we held doctors to as high of a standard as we hold cops...
|
United States43989 Posts
On April 14 2021 14:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 14:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 14 2021 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:In related news, I just saw this picture posted on FB today. Guessing it's trustworthy anyway. + Show Spoiler +I mean I'm guessing maybe you can kinda justify a good number of those 377 at the bottom, but.. that's only a fraction. The genesis of the interactions doesn't tell you anything about whether a killing is justified. The moments leading up to the killing are infinitely more important than the reason for the initial interaction. It does, though. It's very hard for me to imagine that a killing is justified if the guy who got killed is unarmed, even if the person in question becomes completely belligerent. I understand killing someone who is in the process of doing something violent with a weapon (although I think it'll most likely be possible to handle a lot of those cases without killing, too), but police should virtually never kill unarmed people. The hot topic right now is the case of daunte Wright who was killed in Minnesota not far from where George Floyd was killed. The gist of the story is that the police pulled him over for expired tags, they discovered he had a warrant for his arrest, when they tried to arrest him he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued and a cop shot him thinking she had her taser instead of her gun. Obviously a mistake. I would prefer if cops were infallible and didn't make mistakes like that. I think it's also worth noting that doctors will kill far more people from their mistakes this year than cops and doctors have years more training in their field, they don't have to make their decisions in split seconds, and their lives are never in danger. If only we held doctors to as high of a standard as we hold cops...
That’s the stupidest comparison I’ve seen in over 20 years on the internet.
|
On April 14 2021 14:55 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 14:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 14 2021 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:In related news, I just saw this picture posted on FB today. Guessing it's trustworthy anyway. + Show Spoiler +I mean I'm guessing maybe you can kinda justify a good number of those 377 at the bottom, but.. that's only a fraction. The genesis of the interactions doesn't tell you anything about whether a killing is justified. The moments leading up to the killing are infinitely more important than the reason for the initial interaction. It does, though. It's very hard for me to imagine that a killing is justified if the guy who got killed is unarmed, even if the person in question becomes completely belligerent. I understand killing someone who is in the process of doing something violent with a weapon (although I think it'll most likely be possible to handle a lot of those cases without killing, too), but police should virtually never kill unarmed people. The hot topic right now is the case of daunte Wright who was killed in Minnesota not far from where George Floyd was killed. The gist of the story is that the police pulled him over for expired tags, they discovered he had a warrant for his arrest, when they tried to arrest him he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued and a cop shot him thinking she had her taser instead of her gun. Obviously a mistake. I would prefer if cops were infallible and didn't make mistakes like that. I think it's also worth noting that doctors will kill far more people from their mistakes this year than cops and doctors have years more training in their field, they don't have to make their decisions in split seconds, and their lives are never in danger. If only we held doctors to as high of a standard as we hold cops...
What an utterly nonsensical argument. If a doctor killed a patient because instead of suture they grabbed a scalpel and sliced their patient's throat with it, nobody would be talking about an 'accident', the doctor would lose their job, their license, and likely their life's savings too after the lawsuits were done, not to mention the very real possibility of jailtime. Doctors don't kill patients because they chop away at things that look 'suspicious' to them, not to mention that there isn't a single country in the world where medical mistakes don't happen; meanwhile the US is a massive outlier in terms of 'death by cop.' The two are in no way comparable, and it's pretty shocking that a grown man might actually think otherwise.
|
United States43989 Posts
On April 14 2021 15:13 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 14:55 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 14:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 14 2021 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:In related news, I just saw this picture posted on FB today. Guessing it's trustworthy anyway. + Show Spoiler +I mean I'm guessing maybe you can kinda justify a good number of those 377 at the bottom, but.. that's only a fraction. The genesis of the interactions doesn't tell you anything about whether a killing is justified. The moments leading up to the killing are infinitely more important than the reason for the initial interaction. It does, though. It's very hard for me to imagine that a killing is justified if the guy who got killed is unarmed, even if the person in question becomes completely belligerent. I understand killing someone who is in the process of doing something violent with a weapon (although I think it'll most likely be possible to handle a lot of those cases without killing, too), but police should virtually never kill unarmed people. The hot topic right now is the case of daunte Wright who was killed in Minnesota not far from where George Floyd was killed. The gist of the story is that the police pulled him over for expired tags, they discovered he had a warrant for his arrest, when they tried to arrest him he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued and a cop shot him thinking she had her taser instead of her gun. Obviously a mistake. I would prefer if cops were infallible and didn't make mistakes like that. I think it's also worth noting that doctors will kill far more people from their mistakes this year than cops and doctors have years more training in their field, they don't have to make their decisions in split seconds, and their lives are never in danger. If only we held doctors to as high of a standard as we hold cops... What an utterly nonsensical argument. If a doctor killed a patient because instead of suture they grabbed a scalpel and sliced their patient's throat with it, nobody would be talking about an 'accident', the doctor would lose their job, their license, and likely their life's savings too after the lawsuits were done, not to mention the very real possibility of jailtime. Doctors don't kill patients because they chop away at things that look 'suspicious' to them, not to mention that there isn't a single country in the world where medical mistakes don't happen; meanwhile the US is a massive outlier in terms of 'death by cop.' The two are in no way comparable, and it's pretty shocking that a grown man might actually think otherwise.
To me a more fundamental issue is that they neglected to adjust for the number of interactions each year when making their argument. If they’re going to do that then they might as well argue that, based purely on the raw number of annual deaths, jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge is safer than an interaction with either a doctor or a police officer.
The poster is essentially trying to argue that 2/100 is higher than 1/10 because 2>1.
|
On April 14 2021 15:13 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 14:55 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 14:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 14 2021 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:In related news, I just saw this picture posted on FB today. Guessing it's trustworthy anyway. + Show Spoiler +I mean I'm guessing maybe you can kinda justify a good number of those 377 at the bottom, but.. that's only a fraction. The genesis of the interactions doesn't tell you anything about whether a killing is justified. The moments leading up to the killing are infinitely more important than the reason for the initial interaction. It does, though. It's very hard for me to imagine that a killing is justified if the guy who got killed is unarmed, even if the person in question becomes completely belligerent. I understand killing someone who is in the process of doing something violent with a weapon (although I think it'll most likely be possible to handle a lot of those cases without killing, too), but police should virtually never kill unarmed people. The hot topic right now is the case of daunte Wright who was killed in Minnesota not far from where George Floyd was killed. The gist of the story is that the police pulled him over for expired tags, they discovered he had a warrant for his arrest, when they tried to arrest him he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued and a cop shot him thinking she had her taser instead of her gun. Obviously a mistake. I would prefer if cops were infallible and didn't make mistakes like that. I think it's also worth noting that doctors will kill far more people from their mistakes this year than cops and doctors have years more training in their field, they don't have to make their decisions in split seconds, and their lives are never in danger. If only we held doctors to as high of a standard as we hold cops... What an utterly nonsensical argument. If a doctor killed a patient because instead of suture they grabbed a scalpel and sliced their patient's throat with it, nobody would be talking about an 'accident', the doctor would lose their job, their license, and likely their life's savings too after the lawsuits were done, not to mention the very real possibility of jailtime. Doctors don't kill patients because they chop away at things that look 'suspicious' to them, not to mention that there isn't a single country in the world where medical mistakes don't happen; meanwhile the US is a massive outlier in terms of 'death by cop.' The two are in no way comparable, and it's pretty shocking that a grown man might actually think otherwise.
We already know the cop made a mistake in thinking she had her taser. We also know it's a mistake that's not unheard of since it has happened more than once in the past. I don't know why you have to invent some completely absurd analogy that could never happen to compare it to.
Also the US is a massive outlier in death by cop when you compare it to other countries that don't have gun violence the way the US does. Compare it to Brazil or Mexico and suddenly it's not such an outlier.
|
On April 14 2021 15:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 15:13 Salazarz wrote:On April 14 2021 14:55 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 14:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 14 2021 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:In related news, I just saw this picture posted on FB today. Guessing it's trustworthy anyway. + Show Spoiler +I mean I'm guessing maybe you can kinda justify a good number of those 377 at the bottom, but.. that's only a fraction. The genesis of the interactions doesn't tell you anything about whether a killing is justified. The moments leading up to the killing are infinitely more important than the reason for the initial interaction. It does, though. It's very hard for me to imagine that a killing is justified if the guy who got killed is unarmed, even if the person in question becomes completely belligerent. I understand killing someone who is in the process of doing something violent with a weapon (although I think it'll most likely be possible to handle a lot of those cases without killing, too), but police should virtually never kill unarmed people. The hot topic right now is the case of daunte Wright who was killed in Minnesota not far from where George Floyd was killed. The gist of the story is that the police pulled him over for expired tags, they discovered he had a warrant for his arrest, when they tried to arrest him he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued and a cop shot him thinking she had her taser instead of her gun. Obviously a mistake. I would prefer if cops were infallible and didn't make mistakes like that. I think it's also worth noting that doctors will kill far more people from their mistakes this year than cops and doctors have years more training in their field, they don't have to make their decisions in split seconds, and their lives are never in danger. If only we held doctors to as high of a standard as we hold cops... What an utterly nonsensical argument. If a doctor killed a patient because instead of suture they grabbed a scalpel and sliced their patient's throat with it, nobody would be talking about an 'accident', the doctor would lose their job, their license, and likely their life's savings too after the lawsuits were done, not to mention the very real possibility of jailtime. Doctors don't kill patients because they chop away at things that look 'suspicious' to them, not to mention that there isn't a single country in the world where medical mistakes don't happen; meanwhile the US is a massive outlier in terms of 'death by cop.' The two are in no way comparable, and it's pretty shocking that a grown man might actually think otherwise. To me a more fundamental issue is that they neglected to adjust for the number of interactions each year when making their argument. If they’re going to do that then they might as well argue that, based purely on the raw number of annual deaths, jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge is safer than an interaction with either a doctor or a police officer. The poster is essentially trying to argue that 2/100 is higher than 1/10 because 2>1.
I am not making any argument regarding degree or which is more likely. My argument is that a) humans are not infallible and b) the mistakes by police are demonized more than other professions and it's not purely because the stakes are higher since doctors and nurses mistakes can also lead to death
|
United States43989 Posts
On April 14 2021 15:40 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 15:19 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2021 15:13 Salazarz wrote:On April 14 2021 14:55 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 14:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 14 2021 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:In related news, I just saw this picture posted on FB today. Guessing it's trustworthy anyway. + Show Spoiler +I mean I'm guessing maybe you can kinda justify a good number of those 377 at the bottom, but.. that's only a fraction. The genesis of the interactions doesn't tell you anything about whether a killing is justified. The moments leading up to the killing are infinitely more important than the reason for the initial interaction. It does, though. It's very hard for me to imagine that a killing is justified if the guy who got killed is unarmed, even if the person in question becomes completely belligerent. I understand killing someone who is in the process of doing something violent with a weapon (although I think it'll most likely be possible to handle a lot of those cases without killing, too), but police should virtually never kill unarmed people. The hot topic right now is the case of daunte Wright who was killed in Minnesota not far from where George Floyd was killed. The gist of the story is that the police pulled him over for expired tags, they discovered he had a warrant for his arrest, when they tried to arrest him he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued and a cop shot him thinking she had her taser instead of her gun. Obviously a mistake. I would prefer if cops were infallible and didn't make mistakes like that. I think it's also worth noting that doctors will kill far more people from their mistakes this year than cops and doctors have years more training in their field, they don't have to make their decisions in split seconds, and their lives are never in danger. If only we held doctors to as high of a standard as we hold cops... What an utterly nonsensical argument. If a doctor killed a patient because instead of suture they grabbed a scalpel and sliced their patient's throat with it, nobody would be talking about an 'accident', the doctor would lose their job, their license, and likely their life's savings too after the lawsuits were done, not to mention the very real possibility of jailtime. Doctors don't kill patients because they chop away at things that look 'suspicious' to them, not to mention that there isn't a single country in the world where medical mistakes don't happen; meanwhile the US is a massive outlier in terms of 'death by cop.' The two are in no way comparable, and it's pretty shocking that a grown man might actually think otherwise. To me a more fundamental issue is that they neglected to adjust for the number of interactions each year when making their argument. If they’re going to do that then they might as well argue that, based purely on the raw number of annual deaths, jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge is safer than an interaction with either a doctor or a police officer. The poster is essentially trying to argue that 2/100 is higher than 1/10 because 2>1. I am not making any argument regarding degree or which is more likely. My argument is that a) humans are not infallible and b) the mistakes by police are demonized more than other professions and it's not purely because the stakes are higher since doctors and nurses mistakes can also lead to death
So you’re arguing that the police are demonized because of their high rate of killing people but that other professions that kill people at a lower rate don’t get as much criticism as they should? Pretty weird argument.
It also misses the whole point which is that the police keep getting away with killing people. Medical accidents happen but they are investigated appropriately and justice is served. Police killings are generally not accidents (generally preceded by a lot of complaints about excessive force etc.) by officers trained in killology. You don’t see surgeons cutting into the wrong patient with a homemade custom scalpel with “you’re fucked” engraved in the handle and if one killed someone like that then they’d not get away with it.
|
On April 14 2021 15:33 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 15:13 Salazarz wrote:On April 14 2021 14:55 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 14:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 14 2021 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:In related news, I just saw this picture posted on FB today. Guessing it's trustworthy anyway. + Show Spoiler +I mean I'm guessing maybe you can kinda justify a good number of those 377 at the bottom, but.. that's only a fraction. The genesis of the interactions doesn't tell you anything about whether a killing is justified. The moments leading up to the killing are infinitely more important than the reason for the initial interaction. It does, though. It's very hard for me to imagine that a killing is justified if the guy who got killed is unarmed, even if the person in question becomes completely belligerent. I understand killing someone who is in the process of doing something violent with a weapon (although I think it'll most likely be possible to handle a lot of those cases without killing, too), but police should virtually never kill unarmed people. The hot topic right now is the case of daunte Wright who was killed in Minnesota not far from where George Floyd was killed. The gist of the story is that the police pulled him over for expired tags, they discovered he had a warrant for his arrest, when they tried to arrest him he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued and a cop shot him thinking she had her taser instead of her gun. Obviously a mistake. I would prefer if cops were infallible and didn't make mistakes like that. I think it's also worth noting that doctors will kill far more people from their mistakes this year than cops and doctors have years more training in their field, they don't have to make their decisions in split seconds, and their lives are never in danger. If only we held doctors to as high of a standard as we hold cops... What an utterly nonsensical argument. If a doctor killed a patient because instead of suture they grabbed a scalpel and sliced their patient's throat with it, nobody would be talking about an 'accident', the doctor would lose their job, their license, and likely their life's savings too after the lawsuits were done, not to mention the very real possibility of jailtime. Doctors don't kill patients because they chop away at things that look 'suspicious' to them, not to mention that there isn't a single country in the world where medical mistakes don't happen; meanwhile the US is a massive outlier in terms of 'death by cop.' The two are in no way comparable, and it's pretty shocking that a grown man might actually think otherwise. We already know the cop made a mistake in thinking she had her taser. We also know it's a mistake that's not unheard of since it has happened more than once in the past. I don't know why you have to invent some completely absurd analogy that could never happen to compare it to. Also the US is a massive outlier in death by cop when you compare it to other countries that don't have gun violence the way the US does. Compare it to Brazil or Mexico and suddenly it's not such an outlier.
Why the fuck would you compare the US to Brazil or Mexico on any metric at all? What next, you're going to say that the US also does better than Zimbabwe in terms of infant mortality or access to healthcare, so they aren't really issues we should concern ourselves with, either?
I also find it absolutely astonishing that when a cop 'accidentally' shoots someone because they mistook their gun for their taser, your answer to that is 'well it happened before so its okay' and not 'maybe we should actually teach our cops the difference between a gun and a taser.' Like, if my dentist killed me because they injected cyanide instead of lidocaine, I'd hope there would be more reaction to it than 'oopsie, shit happens!'
But hey, it's the doctors who should be held to a higher standard here, right.
|
On April 14 2021 15:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2021 15:40 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 15:19 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2021 15:13 Salazarz wrote:On April 14 2021 14:55 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 14:39 Liquid`Drone wrote:On April 14 2021 09:06 BlackJack wrote:On April 14 2021 05:10 Liquid`Drone wrote:In related news, I just saw this picture posted on FB today. Guessing it's trustworthy anyway. + Show Spoiler +I mean I'm guessing maybe you can kinda justify a good number of those 377 at the bottom, but.. that's only a fraction. The genesis of the interactions doesn't tell you anything about whether a killing is justified. The moments leading up to the killing are infinitely more important than the reason for the initial interaction. It does, though. It's very hard for me to imagine that a killing is justified if the guy who got killed is unarmed, even if the person in question becomes completely belligerent. I understand killing someone who is in the process of doing something violent with a weapon (although I think it'll most likely be possible to handle a lot of those cases without killing, too), but police should virtually never kill unarmed people. The hot topic right now is the case of daunte Wright who was killed in Minnesota not far from where George Floyd was killed. The gist of the story is that the police pulled him over for expired tags, they discovered he had a warrant for his arrest, when they tried to arrest him he attempted to flee, a scuffle ensued and a cop shot him thinking she had her taser instead of her gun. Obviously a mistake. I would prefer if cops were infallible and didn't make mistakes like that. I think it's also worth noting that doctors will kill far more people from their mistakes this year than cops and doctors have years more training in their field, they don't have to make their decisions in split seconds, and their lives are never in danger. If only we held doctors to as high of a standard as we hold cops... What an utterly nonsensical argument. If a doctor killed a patient because instead of suture they grabbed a scalpel and sliced their patient's throat with it, nobody would be talking about an 'accident', the doctor would lose their job, their license, and likely their life's savings too after the lawsuits were done, not to mention the very real possibility of jailtime. Doctors don't kill patients because they chop away at things that look 'suspicious' to them, not to mention that there isn't a single country in the world where medical mistakes don't happen; meanwhile the US is a massive outlier in terms of 'death by cop.' The two are in no way comparable, and it's pretty shocking that a grown man might actually think otherwise. To me a more fundamental issue is that they neglected to adjust for the number of interactions each year when making their argument. If they’re going to do that then they might as well argue that, based purely on the raw number of annual deaths, jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge is safer than an interaction with either a doctor or a police officer. The poster is essentially trying to argue that 2/100 is higher than 1/10 because 2>1. I am not making any argument regarding degree or which is more likely. My argument is that a) humans are not infallible and b) the mistakes by police are demonized more than other professions and it's not purely because the stakes are higher since doctors and nurses mistakes can also lead to death So you’re arguing that the police are demonized because of their high rate of killing people but that other professions that kill people at a lower rate don’t get as much criticism as they should? Pretty weird argument. It also misses the whole point which is that the police keep getting away with killing people. Medical accidents happen but they are investigated appropriately and justice is served. Police killings are generally not accidents (generally preceded by a lot of complaints about excessive force etc.) by officers trained in killology. You don’t see surgeons cutting into the wrong patient with a homemade custom scalpel with “you’re fucked” engraved in the handle and if one killed someone like that then they’d not get away with it.
Show me all the cases of nurses or doctors that have been on trial for mistakes or negligence that resulted in death. George Floyd's killer is on trial now. The "you're fucked' guy was on trial. In reality nurses and doctors whose mistakes kill people not only don't go to jail but they aren't even tried and often don't even lose their license. Yet "justice is served"
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://scontent.fosl3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/172785179_10157575945540443_6333503086682945292_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=P4OuuN7cMNUAX9QmUWu&_nc_ht=scontent.fosl3-2.fna&oh=861f2ff7b2c509e09bb11418f20d2c5e&oe=60999EF6)
